Alleged Arrest Of Major Chabad Figure In Child Sex Abuse Case

We can now confirm that a major figure within the Melbourne Yeshivah community has been arrested and formally interviewed on allegations of child sexual abuse. We understand that this figure, who is currently employed by Yeshivah, has been released and charges are yet to be laid. More to come in due course.

The only way to stop paedophilia is to put rapists in jail as they are repeat offenders. Sincere thanks to the brave people testifying and to Manny. To all those Manny bashers, you should be more than grateful YOU have a world leader here who is pursuing justice to make the community safe. I would like to see Smukler and his lawyers explain this one away. From his previous email of exactly two months ago:

"As Principal of Yeshivah College I find it most disturbing that anyone reading the Australian Jewish News or Tzedek website may be led to believe that Yeshivah College currently employs a known perpetrator of child sexual abuse. This could be no further from the truth.

We are in regular contact with the Victoria Police and the relevant authorities. The Police have made it very clear that should they believe that there is cause for concern or that we need to take action in relation to any staff member, they will contact us immediately. The Police have unequivocally confirmed, that at present, there are no concerns about any of our staff whatsoever.

If the Police or any government agency were to make us aware of any staff member being investigated for allegations of child abuse, our school policy is clear and unequivocal; we would unhesitatingly stand them down and remove them from having any access or exposure to our children during the investigation."

+++While I somewhat understand Australia's desire to protect the identity of those who have only been accused of crimes, it does make these stories frustrating.

Posted by: rebitzman | December 08, 2013 at 09:38 PM+++

I think the Australian law recognizes the fact that merely the allegation of CSA can ruin one's life even if the person is later found to be not guilty. This law protects the reputations of people who might be innocent and could be the subject of malicious allegations (which does happen).

Smukler, you said you would let us know as soon as the police told you something. Have they told you anything yet? Are you missing any staff members? Perhaps do a roll call and work out who is missing, call the police and the working with children people and see if anyone has been charged with rape. Please let us know at your convenience.

NEW! Discover news with your friends. Give it a try.
To get going, simply connect with your favourite social network:
Facebook

THE former principal of one of Melbourne's most prestigious Jewish schools has been stood down amid allegations he used the school's synagogue to repeatedly rape a student.

Rabbi Abraham Glick, one of the most respected figures in the tight-knit orthodox Jewish community, was arrested and formally interviewed by police last week.

He was released pending further inquiries but immediately stood down from his position as religious studies leader at Yeshiva College.

He has not been allowed to attend the campus or contact students since.

The Herald Sun can reveal an alleged victim at the centre of the explosive allegations made a statement to police in July alleging a string of horrific sex crimes.

Rabbi Glick's arrest is the latest in a growing list to rock Melbourne's tight-knit orthodox community but the first time the community leader has been accused of sexual misconduct.

The former student alleges he was the victim of a string of assaults at the school during the 1980s.

In a statement to police, seen by the Herald Sun, the man said he was threatened by staff at the school who knew about the abuse not to tell anyone about it.

He said on different occasions he was raped and made to perform lewd sex acts on the Rabbi who ws the school's deputy principal at the time.

"He was always a predator. I remember looking into his eyes and it was like someone looking at meat on a plate. There was no caring, there was something missing," he said.

"I can't give a clear indication of how long this abuse went on for but it definitely occurred at least over a couple of weeks."

The alleged victim claimed the alleged abuse took place inside the school's Shul, or synagogue, and left him emotionally, physically and psychologically traumatised.

"I was brought up to be obedient and if a Rabbi told you to do something, then you did it," he told police.

"At that time there was no 'bad touching' protocols and no internet, and I wasn't old enough to have words that would express what was happening to me."

The man claimed he remembered a box of chocolates being used to entice him into the synagogue.

He said he remembered being raped on the synagogue's lectern.

"Afterwards I remember crying in the toilets that were near the Shul. I remember hobbling bow legged to the toilets and cleaning myself up and sitting there crying," he said.

The man said Rabbi Glick later asked for his forgiveness.

"I said yes, because as mentioned I was an obedient boy and of course you are going to forgive your Rabbi."

"All I ever wanted was to be a good Jew and a good citizen, and all that has been taken from me."

Until last week the former principal still held one of the most senior positions at the school despite being publicly accused of failing to report numerous alleged incidents of sexual abuse to authorities while in charge between 1986 and 2007.

The Herald Sun revealed last year Victoria Police launched an investigation into Glick's handling of sexual abuse complaints.

The school was previously embroiled in controversy when a Rabbi Rabbi Glick was in charge of the school when Rabbi David Kramer was hurriedly shipped to the US after complaints were made by parents alleging serious sexual misconduct in the early 1990s.

he Rabbi Kramer was extradited to Melbourne earlier this year and was jailed after he pleaded guilty to a string of sexual abuse charges.

It is not yet known if Rabbi Glick has kept his position as head of the Yeshiva Centre council, that presides over the religious ethos of the centre.

Current school principal Rabbi Yehoshua Smukler said Rabbi Glick was immediately stood down in accordance with school policy.

"We will continue his suspension from duties and all contact with the students of the school until the outcome of the inquiry is known," he said.

"The College's action in standing down the staff member should not be seen as prejudging the outcome of the investigation and the College affirms that the staff member is fully entitled to the presumption of innocence accorded to him by Law."

Obviously a jury and court will have to decide (if it gets to court) but, in fairness to Glick, I don't understand the claim in the newspaper article posted by Edith that:

+++He said he remembered being raped on the synagogue's lectern.+++

I don't see how such an act could be done in an open place such as the shul's "lectern" - I assume meaning bimah. Surely such an obscene and illegal act would be done in a private place not subject to a surprize visit by someone?

There is always the possibility that the claim is being made by a deranged individual. Having said that, I don't trust the frumma in anything they say or do, I am just trying to impartially see the possibilities here.

When all these accusations are found to be false, will all Glick's detractors frothing at their mouths,have the balls to admit guilt in rushing to convict??? And then it will be time for Glick to go after Wax on Wack off and the accuser.Justice will prevail. Pity the sapping energy and time consumed with such frivolous accusations.

1. There is enough evidence to charge him.
2. While Manny may have opened the can of worms, the effects are no cause of his, he has only encouraged accusers to come forth.
3. Rabbi g is innocent until proven guilty.
4. Suggest the Benjys, and JohnDoes wait and see for themselves. What they have to say bears no influence on the case either way, in fact, they may have even been involved in the cover-ups, and witness intimidation and may be continuing to do so.

First of all - kudos to Manny for trying to keep the name out of this, because David is correct - it's a tough load of poop to get back into the goose should the accusations prove unfounded. That said - the idea that the press would let it lay pretty well flies in the face of all things 5th estate......

THAT said - Benjy, please buy a dictionary. Even if these charges are later shown to be without merit - there is nothing frivolous about charges of child rape.

Rabbi Glick has been an ugly thorn in the side of the Waks family since this whole thing blew up, and while conceding that this alone is not an absolute sign of guilt - the idea of using one's position to try to shut down an issue such as this in a case where they are elbows deep in the issue is not beyond the reach of believability.

I honestly hope that its not true and that glick did not do this....
But for now it is what it is and this will go to court....

As for how I know....you can either believe what you read here which is accurate information or you can go back to the Galus blog with Joe slater and the other apologists who posted that there is no investigation...
your choice

But I feel compelled to opine regarding Rabbi Avrohom Glick, who was recently questioned over a child sex abuse allegation against him. It’s important to note that criminal charges have NOT been filed against the rabbi and there is no indication that any charges will be filed. He was questioned and released.

To preface, I have no stake in this fight. I don’t know the accuser or the accused. I have no connections to the Yeshiva in Australia and I have zero interest in protecting institutions or rabbis potentially engaging in wrongdoing. In fact, I have called out rabbis and institutions in the past.

Over the last several years I have organized sexual abuse awareness seminars, advocated for sexual abuse awareness in various media forums, in insular communities and in-person. I will continue to fight that good fight protecting lives. I’m basing my opinion on the information that has been made publicly available. It is simply a reflection. If more facts arise I could certainly change my opinion.

Here’s the accusation against Rabbi Glick: “The victim told police he was lured to the worship centre when he was eight and raped ‘in front of the Sefer Torah’, the scroll of the Torah, Judaism's sacred text. ‘I have a clear memory of the pain and grunting.’ He said he was raped several times and forced to perform oral sex, and that the man also abused another victim.” The accuser says this happened in the 1980’s.

This is the first time Rabbi Glick has been accused of any sexual misconduct even though the accuser references another victim.

While of course sexual abusers don’t have any profile, given the information that is publicly available, Rabbi Click does not meet the classic hallmarks of a violent child sex offender, which is what he is accused of.

It is widely recognized that given enough time violent sexual offenders will victimize many. This is especially true of violent pedophiles. They very rarely have one victim.

Here, Rabbi Glick stands accused of violently and brazenly sexually assaulting a child in the 1970-80s yet, to my knowledge, no other victims have come forward and no other such allegations have ever been made against him.

The fact that this supposedly happened in 1970-80 gives adequate time for multiple victims to come forward or rumors to circulate. This accusation is either false or a very unusual and unlikely deviation from classic pedophile behavior where multiple victims are abused. (If more accusers come forward, this analysis would obviously change).

Child sexual abuse accusations are rarely false (estimates put false accusation at under 10%), however ritual type sexual abuse allegations are far more likely to be false as has been the case in the past. “Raped in front of the Sefer Torah” sounds like some form of bizarre ritual sexual abuse. Also, I’m told that the Shul has several entrances on the main floor and upstairs section. As a practical matter, child sexual abuse rarely happens in such public and visible places. It happens in secrecy.

Of course it’s also critical to be mindful of the presumption of innocence. In criminal cases, everyone is innocent unless proven otherwise. In this case, criminal charges haven’t even been filed. The man was just questioned by police and then released. My guess is that given the circumstance there will be no charges filed against Rabbi Glick.

(With that said, the Yeshiva College in Melbourne has certainly engaged in institutional cover-up of sexual abuse and should be held to task for that. For example, after having knowledge of abuse they allowed convicted sex offender David Kramer to flee to America, where he sodomized another child. He was eventually jailed, extradited, and sentenced to 18 months in prison without parole. Also, David Cyprys, a former security guard at the Yeshiva, recently pleaded guilty to sexually abusing nine boys in an eight-year period).

Wacks will burn for this one. And you Rosenberg, I will be sure you go down for slander on this one too.

A well-known quote, one of Rabbi Yitzchok Groner's favourites and regularly used by him, is: A (rotting) fish stinks from the head (downwards). Whether Rabbi Avrohom Glick is guilty or not of this crime alleged against him, it is a most apt quote in this context.

About the arguments made here by David that the circumstances described by the complainant make it hard to believe his claim because of the unlikelihood of an offender committing such an act in a semi public place like a synagogue (and to anyone else who thinks the same), below are four relevant items of information from which it will be seen that, contrary to speculation by those unfamiliar with the synagogue, there were several ways available to the rabbi to have accomplished this crime without fear of being caught in flagrante delicto.

Additionlly, when this story first broke on this blog (well before the identity of the alleged offender was released), I commented there that God would have been happier if the man had pissed on the Torah and left the boy alone. I made that comment in response to the complainant's description of the crime as having occurred in front of a Torah scroll. Some may have seen this as a bizarre, even somewhat incredible circumstance, but nevertheless one of little legal relevance to the main substance of the accusation. In point 2 below, I present a theory of the crime in which that element, far from being irrelevant and bizarre, could well have been an essential ingredient of the crime.

1) Back in those days there were long periods during the school day, when the synagogue (the alleged crime scene) was not only empty and unused but there was also a very small volume of casual foot traffic through it when it was not in use. Nevertheless, interruption was at least a possibility, slim or not, and some commenters here may be inclined to disbelieve the story for that reason. This is why the next three points are highly relevant.

2) "On the bimah in front of the Torah scroll". There are three points relevant to this:

(a) In common with many synagogues built to conform with Orthodox practice, that synagogue has two daises. Although colloquially, in Orthodox circles, the term "bimah" is more usually applied to the second of the two below, linguistically, each one is called a "bimah" in Hebrew. The first one is at the front, where the ark containing the Torah scrolls is located. The second, in the centre of the synagogue, is the location of the large reading desk from which Torah readings are conducted.

(b) Either of those two daises would qualify as being "in front of the Torah," the latter particularly so if a Torah scroll was lying on the desk at the time, either rolled up or open, which could be the case for several reasons even at a time when no Torah reading is occurring. One example is when a scroll needs to be inspected to decide whether it needs a repair at a certain place or in preparation for an actual repair that is scheduled to be undertaken imminently. Another example might be to demonstrate something in connection with the Torah scroll to a school pupil for an educational purpose. This could easily serve as an excuse, either for taking the boy up onto the central bimah, or up to the ark on the front bimah, ostensibly to show him something in connection with the Torah scroll(s).

(c) Aside from providing the rabbi with an excuse for taking the boy up to either bimah, this could also serve an intimidatory purpose to cow the boy into submission and fill him with the awe that proximity to the holy Torah could induce in an indocrinated child, especially if it was being used as a prop symbolic of the rabbi's supreme authority and accompanied by exhortations to show obedience to the rabbi who was thereby presenting himself as the custodian of the scroll in that context. This would apply whether they were on the central bimah with a Torah scroll placed on the reading desk or on the front bimah with the doors of the ark opened to expose the scrolls housed inside it.

This is precisely the technique used in an ancient, traditional ritual that accompanies the taking of an oath sworn before a Torah scroll, which is used as a prop for precisely that same purpose -- i.e. to imbue the ritual with an atmosphere of awe and to instill fear of divine retribution in the swearer if he was inclined to swear falsely. Someone who studied for the rabbinate as Rabbi Glick did would be be aware of that technique and procedure and of the intimidatory effect it would likely have on a young child educated at the Yeshivah.

3) As for the prospect of being discovered, the central bimah is surrounded by shoulder-high walls which would temporarily shield anyone standing there from the full view of someone entering from either the main entrance at the rear or the secondary one at the front-right corner, providing enough time for someone standing behind the boy to quickly adjust his comportment and the boy's state of dress before the person entering reached a clearer viewing position. If they were both standing at the reading position at the desk, the desk itself would have shielded him from the view of someone entering from the front, and the back wall of the bimah as well as his own back would have shielded him from the view of someone entering from the main entrance at the back of the synagogue.

The central bimah would also have provided the rabbi with an additional prop to assist him with his real purpose: there would have been a small footstool there provided for boys of short stature to stand on to raise them to a convenient viewing height at the desk. If this story is true, the rabbi (who is not very tall himself) might have stood the boy on it. (Need I paint a detailed picture?)

If they were standing on the front bimah, facing the open ark, especially if the curtain hung in front of the ark was drawn behind them, that would also provide a temporary shield affording the rabbi enough time to compose himself if interrupted.

4) Alternatively, there are two other scenarios that could have applied in that synagogue, either of which would have afforded the rabbi complete privacy and protection from being interrupted. Adjacent to and to the left of the front bimah is a small, lockable room capable of serving as a private office but which was largely unused at that time. The assault could have occurred in there (possibly after showing the boy the nearby open ark for the purpose suggested in point 2).

As a second possibility, the assault could have occurred in the upstairs balcony area of the synagogue. That is the women's section of the synagogue during Shabbat services, but on school days it was empty and largely unused at that time. The curtain surrounding the balcony would have shielded them from the view of anyone entering the downstairs section -- that was its very purpose. Furthermore, it has only two entrances, both of which could have been temporarily secured against unexpected intrusion. Anyone standing at the balcony, or possibly even from the higher pews further back, would have a direct view of both daises and of any Torah scroll exposed to view at either of them, which would be consistent with the complainant's statement.

The main entrance to the balcony area is via a single staircase emerging at the back end of the balcony and by a pair of emergency stairs at the opposite end. At both ends, a single ground-level entrance to the stairs could be shut off from outside access by lockable doors that, when shut, could only be opened from the outside with a key. Simply snibbing the lock from the inside could bar entry even by a key holder. The ground-level door to the emergency stairs was usually kept shut in any case. The ground-level entry to the main staircase was usually kept open because back then its upstairs landing, a small upper foyer area, was used on school days as a staff room. Even so, the staff room was usually used only at lunch time and even then an intervening door separated the upstairs foyer from the synagogue balcony area proper. That door was closed when the staff room was in use and, although its lock was broken, it could still be barred from the inside by inserting a rod-like object like a pen or a knife into the lock hole.

So, contrary to speculation by those unfamiliar with that synagogue, there were several ways that the rabbi could have committed this crime with minimal or no risk of being caught in the act.